linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240206143506.6zsj2gktu754gvl6@revolver>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:35:06 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, aarcange@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
        david@...hat.com, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, bgeffon@...gle.com,
        willy@...radead.org, jannh@...gle.com, kaleshsingh@...gle.com,
        ngeoffray@...gle.com, timmurray@...gle.com, rppt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] userfaultfd: use per-vma locks in userfaultfd
 operations

* Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> [240205 17:24]:
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:00 PM Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > * Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com> [240205 16:55]:
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > We can take care of anon_vma as well here right? I can take a bool
> > > > > > parameter ('prepare_anon' or something) and then:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >            if (vma) {
> > > > > >                     if (prepare_anon && vma_is_anonymous(vma)) &&
> > > > > > !anon_vma_prepare(vma)) {
> > > > > >                                       vma = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > > >                                       goto out_unlock;
> > > > > >                    }
> > > > > > >                 vma_aquire_read_lock(vma);
> > > > > >            }
> > > > > > out_unlock:
> > > > > > >         mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > > > > > >         return vma;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you need this?  I didn't think this was happening in the code as
> > > > > written?  If you need it I would suggest making it happen always and
> > > > > ditch the flag until a user needs this variant, but document what's
> > > > > going on in here or even have a better name.
> > > >
> > > > I think yes, you do need this. I can see calls to anon_vma_prepare()
> > > > under mmap_read_lock() protection in both mfill_atomic_hugetlb() and
> > > > in mfill_atomic(). This means, just like in the pagefault path, we
> > > > modify vma->anon_vma under mmap_read_lock protection which guarantees
> > > > that adjacent VMAs won't change. This is important because
> > > > __anon_vma_prepare() uses find_mergeable_anon_vma() that needs the
> > > > neighboring VMAs to be stable. Per-VMA lock guarantees stability of
> > > > the VMA we locked but not of its neighbors, therefore holding per-VMA
> > > > lock while calling anon_vma_prepare() is not enough. The solution
> > > > Lokesh suggests would call anon_vma_prepare() under mmap_read_lock and
> > > > therefore would avoid the issue.
> > > >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > anon_vma_prepare() is also called in validate_move_areas() via move_pages().
> >
> > Probably worth doing it unconditionally and have a comment as to why it
> > is necessary.
> >
> The src_vma (in case of move_pages()) doesn't need to have it.
> 
> The only reason I'm not inclined to make it unconditional is what if
> some future user of lock_vma() doesn't need it for their purpose? Why
> allocate anon_vma in that case.

Because there isn't a user and it'll add a flag that's a constant.  If
there is a need for the flag later then it can be added at that time.
Maybe there will never be a user and we've just complicated the code for
no reason.  Don't implement features that aren't necessary, especially
if there is no intent to use them.

> 
> > Does this avoid your locking workaround?
> 
> Not sure which workaround you are referring to. I am almost done
> implementing your suggestion. Very soon will share the next version of
> the patch-set.

The locking dance with the flags indicating if it's per-vma lock or
mmap_lock.